There are court opinions that quietly reinforce fundamentals, and then there are opinions that practically wave a red flag and say, “Pay attention!” A recent Texas federal decision does the latter. 1 The case involved a hail and wind claim, a prior Winter Storm Uri loss, competing estimates, and ultimately a complete defense win on summary judgment because the policyholder could not prove causation or segregate damages. The lessons are basic for Texas property insurance law. Texas insurance law can be unforgiving if these are not proven by the policyholder.

Texas law has never been shy about putting a high burden of proof upon the policyholder. An insured cannot recover policy benefits unless the insured proves that the damages sought were caused by a covered peril and were not the result of excluded or prior events. When covered and excluded perils combine, the insured must present evidence that gives a jury a reasonable basis to allocate damages.

Texas courts do not guess. They do not “connect the dots” for you. They dismiss cases when proof of causation is missing.

In this case, the policyholder had a prior paid appraisal award for Winter Storm Uri that included extensive interior damage. A later hail claim sought payment for many of the same rooms. The policyholder’s public adjuster produced a large estimate, but the estimate did not identify which damages were caused by the later storm, which were caused by the freeze, and which predated both. The estimate looked impressive. It just did not do the job Texas law requires.

The court was blunt. An estimate that does not opine on causation and does not segregate damages is not evidence of coverage. It does not raise a fact issue. It does not survive summary judgment. That Texas property insurance principle is not new, but it is enforced relentlessly. I have stressed this in my post, How to Lose a Causation Case: Special Rules in Texas.

What made the outcome even more damaging was how the causation gap was attempted to be filled. An affidavit appeared late in the case that contradicted prior sworn testimony. The judge struck it under the sham affidavit doctrine. Without that affidavit, there was nothing left to carry the policyholder’s burden. The case ended right there. When hard issues arise, they should be addressed early. Insurance company lawyers will not miss those issues.

There is a deeper lesson here that goes beyond causation doctrine. Judges notice patterns. They read footnotes. They remember lawyers. In this opinion, the court included a footnote calling out prior conduct by the policyholder’s counsel in other cases and referenced earlier sanctions and credibility issues. That footnote mattered. It did not help the policyholder. It likely made every factual gap look wider and every misstep more serious.

Policyholders should not hire lawyers based on pithy advertising. Lawyers with credibility protect the policyholder’s claim. Once credibility is damaged, every close call disappears. Causation disputes are close calls by nature. They require trust in the experts, trust in counsel, and transparency in the process.

Thought For The Day 

“It takes many good deeds to build a reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.”
Benjamin Franklin

1 Reagins v. Meridian Security Ins. Co., No. 4:24-cv-01404 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026). (See also, Meridian Security Motion for Summary Judgment).